Social Influence

concepts info evaluation
Bystander behaviour	Bystander intervention – when bystander intervenes to help someone in emergency Bystander apathy – when bystander fails to help
	Personal factors	Mood Bad moods – tend to focus attention inwards and on ourselves Good mood – tend to look outwards, giving opportunity to perceive others in need of help – more likely to intervene Competence Similarity – more likely to intervene if we can identify with victim
	Situational factors	Diffusion of responsibility – larger crowd, less personal responsibility we feel Pluralistic ignorance – seeing large no’ of people not helping, likely to interpret situation as a non-emergency Noticing event – larger crowd, less likely to pay attention to surroundings Cost of helping
Conformity Changing behaviours/beliefs to fit in with group	Normative SI – conforming so we don’t feel rejected Compliance – changing public behaviour but not private beliefs Internalisation – changing public + private behaviours to fit in with group – changes last as long as you’re with group Informational SI – conforming as we think others know more and have more info Identification – permanently changing both public and private beliefs
	Personal factors	Locus of control Internal – lots of control over behaviour and less likely to be influenced by others, so less likely to conform External – less control over behaviour and more likely to be influenced by others so more likely to conform
	Situational factors – ASCH	Size of majority – more people, more pressure to conform 1 confederate – conformity rate 3% 3 confederates – conformity rate 32% Unanimity of majority Disagreement among majority or presence of dissenter, less pressure to fit in so less likely to conform Task difficulty ISI, unsure how to behave, so mimicking those around us More likely to conform to those around us
obedience	Legitimate authority – when power and authority of someone is considered accepted and right
Following orders or instructions of someone considered as authority figure	Agency theory/ agentic state – believing authority figure is responsible for our own actions
	Personal factors	Locus of control Internal – lots of control over behaviour and less likely to be influenced by others, so less likely to obey External – less control over behaviour and more likely to be influenced by others so more likely to obey?
	Situational factors – MILGRAM 65% shocked all the way up to 450 volts	Proximity of victim Victim in other room – 65% Victim in same room – 40% Proximity of authority figure Experimenter giving instructions in same room – 65% Giving instructions via telephone – 5 % Legitimacy of authority figure Wearing lab coat – 65% Ordinary member of public – 20% Legitimacy of context Yale university – 65% Run-down office block – 47.5%
	Preventing blind obedience	Increasing distance between authority figure If distance increased, impact lessened Can walk away from uncomfortable situations Less likely to obey Increasing familiarity When in unfamiliar situation, more likely to follow orders as we don’t know how to behave If we have knowledge about situation, more likely to question orders Less likely to follow orders Social support Milgram – presence of dissenting ally lowered obedience When with others who resist obedience, more likely to follow suit and question orders Educating about dangers Organisations using education programmes and policies to support employees More knowledge, more comfortable with questing authority
Crowd behaviour	Pro-social and anti-social behaviour
	Conformity and deindividuation	When in large group or crowd – deindividuated Losing sense of personal identity and responsibility So more likely to conform and engage in anti-social behaviour
	Obedience	Among group, may be a leader or someone respected and considered to have legitimate authority, giving orders So okay with obeying their lead and orders, engaging in anti-social behaviour, due to legitimate authority
K E Y S T U D I E S
Pilliavin et al	Bystander behaviour IV – type of victim (drunk/ill + black/white) DV – speed and frequency of help Sample size – 4500 passengers travelling on NY subway, between 11am-3pm	Results 62/65 trials – passengers helped ill victim before role model intervention 19/38 trials – passengers helped drunk victims before model intervention 90% of first helpers were male Conclusions More likely to help ill victim compared to ‘drunk’ victim – cost of helping ill person is less + perception that drunk people are more responsible for situation Men more likely to help = women may feel that cost of helping is higher and cost of not helping is less than that for men – women not expected to respond in emergencies Small tendency for ‘same race’ helping, especially when drunk victim – feeling more similarity, more likely to intervene due to empathising more	Strengths Ecological validity Field experiment – done in naturalistic environment (subway) on passengers who regularly commute using subway – behaviour observed more likely to reflect real-life behaviour Internal Validity Passengers didn’t know they were being observed, reducing demand characteristics, so behaviour more likely to be natural Weaknesses Lack of informed consent Lack of protection from harm Could’ve caused distress to participants witnessing upsetting event + felt pressure to intervene or guilt for not helping Temporal validity Study conducted in 1969, long time ago, so bystander behaviour may have changed Population validity Sample based entirely on people from NY, people from different (collective) countries may behave differently Not generalisable to wider population
zimbardo	Conformity 75 responded to ads 24 selected as participants 22 actually became prisoners or guards Location – Stanford university basement Duration – intended to last 2 weeks, but terminated after 6 days Ensuring realism Prisoners arrested from home Stripped, deloused and given ID numbers on arrival Both prisoners and guards wearing uniform Guards worked shift patterns	Results Guard’s behaviour – generally aggressive and abusive towards prisoners Prisoner’s behaviour – generally submissive and obeyed guard’s orders Conclusions Cause – uniform and roles deindividuated participants – facilitating change in behaviour and causing them to lose their personal identity, adopting the identities they were given	Strengths Ecological validity Many aspects of prison environment reflecting surroundings and events of real-life prison (e.g, ID numbers, arrested from home). So behaviour observed may reflect that of real-life Weaknesses Lack of protection from harm Study terminated after 6 days; distress caused to prisoners subject to mal-treatment of guards Lack of informed consent prisoners weren’t told they’d be arrested from home Demand characteristics Behaviour may not have been caused by their assigned roles (prisoner/guard), instead behaving how Zimbardo wanted them to
I S S U E S + D E B A T E S
Explaining social issues	A01 Bystander effect – refers to the reluctance of people to help out in emergency situations, which can be due to situational factors such as diffusion of responsibility and pluralistic ignorance (enhanced by the presence of more people) or personal factors such as your mood at the time or your competence and ability regarding that particular situation.	AO2 Holocaust	AO3 Bystander effects – Pilliavin’s Subway study supports notion that bystander behaviour may have caused the Holocaust. Found that people were more likely to help those in an emergency if they were of the same race (a source of similarity). Therefore, because many German citizens contributing to bystander effect were not Jewish, this can explain why they didn’t attempt to offer more help to the victims of Nazi abuse and persecution.
	Conformity – means altering your beliefs or behaviours in order to fit in and be liked (normative social influence) or to be correct (informational social influence)	Riots	Conformity – Asch’s research supports concept that conformity contributes to rioting, as he found that participants were likely to change their behaviour and conform to the group, despite some being aware that it was incorrect), in order to fit in.
	Obedience – following instructions of someone perceived to have legitimate authority – influenced by proximity and legitimacy of the authority figure or even culture (individualism or collectivism)	Holocaust	Obedience – Milgram’s (1963) research found that people were more likely to obey someone perceived to have legitimate authority (for example an experimenter with a lab coat rather than someone dressed in casual clothing). Therefore, as the German citizens viewed the Nazi’s to have legitimate authority, they were therefore less likely to help .
	Deindividuation – when we lose our personal sense of responsibility and identity when a part of a large crowd with similar attributes or assigned a specific role, exemplified in Zimbardo’s study exploring conflict between prisoners and guards	Riots	Deindividuation – Zimbardo found that the uniforms and roles deindividuated the participants, causing them to lose their sense of identity and conform to their roles (prisoners becoming submissive in comparison to the aggression displayed by the guards). Therefore, in riots, due to being in a large group, the rioters are deindividuated, losing their personal sense of identity and responsibility over their actions, making them more likely to engage in anti-social behaviour.
	Example Answer Obedience is where we follow the instructions and orders of someone perceived to have legitimate authority – influenced by situational factors, such as the proximity and legitimacy of the authority figures or even personal factors such as your locus of control. Deindividuation is where we lose our sense of personal identity and responsibility when in a crowd with similar attributes or beliefs, or when assigned a specific role, exemplified in Zimbardo’s study exploring conflict between prisoners and guards. The Holocaust can be explained through obedience as the Nazi regime and officers were considered to have legitimate authority, due to propaganda and the fear of their violence and punishment. Therefore, the German citizens obeyed their instructions to not interfere or offer protection and support to the Jews as the Nazis were viewed as authority figures, with power and control. Riots can also be explained through deindividuation as being in a large crowd with those with similar aims and characteristics can cause individuals to be deindividuated and lose the personal sense of identity. Therefore, they may also lose their personal sense of responsibility and are more likely to engage in anti-social behaviour. Milgram’ study supports the notion that the Holocaust was caused by large-scale obedience as he found that participants were more likely to obey someone perceived to have legitimate authority; for example, when the experimenter wearing a white lab coat was replaced with an ordinary member of public in casual clothes, obedience dropped from 65% to 21%. Therefore, as the Germans viewed the Nazis as legitimate authority figures, they were obliged to obey and follow their orders (and to not help the persecuted Jews). Furthermore, Zimbardo found that the uniforms and assigned roles deindividuated the participants, causing them to lose their personal sense of identity and to conform to their given roles; the guards behaved abusively with aggression, in comparison to the submissive behaviour displayed by the prisoners. Therefore, the rioters were deindividuated, due to being in a large group, losing their personal sense of identity and responsibility for their actions and making them more likely to engage in anti-social behaviours.
Explaining cultural differences	A01 Culture – set of beliefs, practices and traditions held by a large group of people Individualistic culture – typically western (eg, US + UK), emphasising independence, autonomy and individuality Collectivistic culture – typically Eastern (eg, Russia and China), emphasising group membership, interdependence and cooperation	A02 Obedience – Individualistic cultures less likely to obey authority figures as less likely to lose personal sense of identity for actions Collectivistic cultures more likely to obey, due to valuing group goals, therefore more likely to fall in line + follow instructions. Bystander effect Individualistic cultures more likely to see bystander effect and apathy because of less significance placed on forming bonds with fellow citizens In collectivist cultures, sense of togetherness that people value may cause them to feel greater similarity with others in emergencies, making them more likely to intervene	A03 Supporting culture influence on obedience Shanab and Yahya (1977) – replicated Milgram’s experiment in Jordan (a collectivist culture). Found that 73% gave maximum level of shock, higher than the 65% in the original, conducted in the USA, an individualistic culture Supporting and refuting influence on bystander behaviour Pilliavin et al (1969) – found that bystanders were more likely to help ‘victims’ of same race However, Factors other than culture could explain rates of bystander intervention. For example, cost of helping in particular situation or individual’s mood at the time
	Example Answer Culture is a set of beliefs, practices or traditions held by a large group of people. Individualistic cultures – more prevalent in western countries such as the UK or USA – prioritise values of independence, autonomy and personal individuality. In contrast, collectivist cultures – more widespread in eastern countries like China and Russia – emphasise group membership and relevant features such as cooperation and interdependence. In terms of obedience, individualistic cultures are less likely to obey authority figures due to more significance being placed on identity and individuality. They’re less likely to lose their personal sense of identity and responsibility for their actions. However, collectivistic cultures are more likely to obey authority figures because they value group goals and are therefore more likely to comply and follow instructions. Regarding bystander effect, individualistic cultures are more likely to display bystander effect, specifically bystander apathy as there is less value placed on group collectivity and forming close relationships with fellow citizens. Collectivistic cultures, on the other hand, are more inclined to intervene in emergency situations (exhibiting bystander intervention) due to the communal values causing them to feel greater similarity with others in crisis. Research supporting cultural influence on obedience include Shanab and Yahyha (1977), who replicated Milgram’s experiment in Jordan, a collectivistic culture. Their findings included that over 73% of participants gave the maximum level of shock, much higher than the 65% in the original study conducted in the USA, an individualistic culture. In addition, Pilliavin et al (1969) is suitable research supporting cultural influences on bystander effect as it was found that bystanders were more likely to help ‘victims’ of the same race, corroborating the concept of collectivistic cultures showing more bystander intervention than apathy. However, factors other than culture could explain rate of bystander intervention. For example, the cost of helping in the particular situation could be tangible explanation, as well as a person’s mood at the time or even their competence and capability to actually help within those circumstances.